67 modalities, and designation of beneficiaries) by international law, cannot be altered or eluded by the State’s invocation of provisions of its domestic law.97 171. Reparations, consist in those measures necessary to make the effects of the committed violations disappear. The nature and amount of the reparations depend on the harm caused at both the material and moral levels. Reparations cannot, in any case, entail either the enrichment or the impoverishment of the victim or his or her family.98 172. In light of the abovementioned criteria, the Court will proceed to analyze the submissions of the Commission and the representatives regarding reparations, in order to determine the pertinent remedial measures to be adopted in the instant case. A) BENEFICIARIES Arguments of the Commission 173. The Commission considers that the beneficiaries of reparations in this case should be the Moiwana residents who survived the attack and the family members of those who were killed. Arguments of the representatives 174. The representatives similarly argued that the beneficiaries of reparations should be the survivors of the massacre and the next of kin of those killed. Arguments of the State 175. The State requested that the Commission’s claim for reparations be denied based on the fact that “the method applied by the Commission to determine the individuals who would be entitled to reparations, as well as the level of the reparations, is not justified by law.” The Court’s Assessment 176. To begin, the Court considers that the “injured parties” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, are those persons defined in paragraph 71 as the “Moiwana community members” (supra paragraphs 71 and 86(17) for the complete list). In consequence, said individuals shall be the beneficiaries of the reparations the Tribunal deems suitable to order. 177. It is necessary to recall that within the context of the contentious process, the identities of the beneficiaries must be properly communicated to the Court.99 Thus, this Tribunal cannot grant the request that additional victims, which to date have not 97 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 135; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10, para. 231; and Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 82, para. 87. 98 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 136; Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 82, para. 89; and Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 225. 99 Cf. Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 82, para. 62; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute,” supra note 59, para. 273.